[time 827] Re: [time 825] Chu spaces, causality, local systems... quantum laws of form? ...

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:12:42 +0900

Dear Ben,

Welcome back!

Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

Subject: [time 825] Chu spaces, causality, local systems... quantum laws of
form? ...

> > > Perhaps we need to step back and take stock of that ideas
> > have led us
> > > to this point. Lance and I have been talking on the phone about
> > > causality and clocking, toward, I hope, a way of understanding how it is
> > > that the "space-times" that are 'observed' by Local Systems are related
> > > to each other.
> Hi, I have not posted to this list in a while because I decided that I did
> not have time
> to truly delve into Matti's mathematics and this seemed to be the dominant
> topic of
> conversation. but now I will emerge from my lurking...
> I have read Hitoshi's papers again and remain convinced that this is a
> fascinating
> direction for physics... and remain concerned about how it generalizes to
> deal with
> weak & strong nuclear forces...

At the present age when there is no mighty theory/view to nature/ourselves,
this direction would be fascinating. Or, this direction is necessary for us to
recover/reconstruct ourselves/world. The strong and weak forces might have to
be included. But before that, I think, there is a necessity that we get our
world back to our hands. This is a philosophical need for the present age.

> The mention of causality intrigues me here because this is something I've
> been working
> on in the context of Webmind. It seems that causality is not possible to
> assess within
> a local system, but only globally, amongst local systems. Do you agree with
> this Hitoshi?

Yes, I agree. As well, I feel it necessary to think about mind/consciousness
as you are doing, which would give us understanding the locality without

> At the urging of Youlian Troyanov, I have also been reading some of Pratt's
> papers, and was
> particularly intrigued by the Stone Gamut paper. However I have some doubts
> about the
> usefulness of the approach. It is just so damn general -- so we can
> generate every
> algebra there is; so what? The physical world deals with specific algebras.

The approach would be too general to be useful.

> However perhaps one can view Chu spaces as a kind of pre-physics. this
> might make sense.
> first, out of the void, there burst Chu spaces...
> Then, a selection phase occurs -- those points in the Stone Gamut that do
> not lead to viable
> universes die ... and those points that are algebras supporting viable
> universes survive.
> thus we arrive perhaps at the octonion and lorentzian groups, as
> specifically useful points in
> the stone gamut coordinatization of algebraic structures...
> But, I'm not sure I love this "top-down" approach where you start with a
> coordinatization
> of everything and then whittle down.

I share your view.

> Rather I am still more attracted to the laws of form approach in which you
> begin with simple
> structure and then increment onto it, adding on more and more structure at
> random, retaining
> it if it works...

This might be a spirit of the age. We have no unique view that is common to
everybody. At such an age, one has to construct oneself from one's
neighborhood (not necessarily a spatial neighborhood), or from form in your

> The idea of a local system is nothing but a Laws of Form distinction mark
> (identical to
> the "boundary" around an individual conscious element that I posit in my
> theory of
> consciousness). Then the laws of physics can perhaps be viewed as
> additional types of boundary composition operators....

Yes, the world has been destructed, and we can/need-to reconstruct it as if
the components behave like algebraic objects. Namely there is no criterion
that gives their behavior. We have freedom to start with objects that have
arbitrary (but fixed) algebraic properties.

> Now I will speculate shamelessly, indicating the kind of direction I would
> like to go in,
> although I have not gone here rigorously yet:
> Typographically, the universe as a bunch of local systems looks like
> { [a ] [b ] [c] [d] }
> where [ a ] denotes a local system containing a and the { } boundary denotes
> a set,
> i.e. the universe, containing unordered elements
> When one local system interacts with another it can perhaps be viewed as
> sending some kind
> of "messenger" entity to the other; thus we have a new kind of boundary { }
> representing
> a voyager from one local system to another?

{ } here is different from the { } above representing the universe? Or do you
mean many (local) universes exist?

> Whatever goes on inside a local universe is reversible hence causality does
> not exist in there.
> the sending of voyagers from one local universe to another is irreversible
> and thus creates
> causality???

So you think three kinds of components for the universe? Local systems, local
universes and the voyagers or messengers?

> The dynamics of the elements inside local universes, and the dynamics
> of messengers between local universes, has got to be expressible
> algebraically. But all
> the algebras implicit in chu spaces are not needed for this.
> Quantum logic comes to mind here, but it does not seem to give enough
> information -- it doesn't
> tell you how to run the dynamics of a local system, it only describes some
> symmetries of the
> dynamics of the local system.
> Anyone ever build a "quantum Laws of Form" ? This would seem to be what we
> need here.

Yes, this is necessary to recover the world.

> A quantum boundary <w> , where the properties of interaction of <> entities
> give quantum
> dynamics. then the world inside a local system would be represented as a
> bag of <> enclosed
> entities, whereas the relativistic world amongst local systems would
> represented in terms of
> interactions of {} messengers.

Is quantum boundary < > different from [ ] above? How are/do these three
kinds of boundary defined/work? Or what postulates do you require them to

> -- Ben Goertzel

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:42 JST